• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that employ different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practices and policy decisions, not to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices, including recruiting participants, setting, design, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1, which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should be careful not to blind patients or the clinicians as this could lead to bias in the estimation of the effects of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings, so that their results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, 프라그마틱 불법 like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have harmful adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should also reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut costs and time commitments. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the term's use should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be integrated into everyday routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up scored high. However, the main outcome and the method for 프라그마틱 데모 missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with good pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the trial.

However, it is difficult to assess how practical a particular trial is, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 since the pragmatism score is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during a trial can change its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not as common and can only be called pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates' differences at the time of baseline.

Furthermore the pragmatic trials may be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcome assessment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that all trials be 100 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing study size and cost, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example could help a study extend its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and, consequently, decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scored on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of management, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither sensitive nor specific) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. The use of these words in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism, but it isn't clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence becomes increasingly popular the pragmatic trial has gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world treatment options with clinical trials in development. They involve patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational studies that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to use existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often limited by the need to recruit participants quickly. Additionally some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and were published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to determine pragmatism. It covers areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored as highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of these were single-center.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain populations from various hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanation study could still yield valuable and valid results.